their own we have Liberty to come in at the Evening and sup with them and may wipe our mouths after all with the same good Conscience the Woman did in the Proverbs But truly I think those who won't venture to ride the Chace ought not to be admitted to the eating of the Venison However if we examine the matter critically it 's hard to tell which sort of Revolters the early or the later ought to be preferred They have each of them their peculiar Excellencies The one has more Courage the other more Caution and both the same Staunchness of Principles Ambition is predominant in the first Fear and Covetousness in the latter who is such a flexible apprehensive Creature that whoever can command his Interest may likewise command his Actions and fright him out or into any thing at their Pleasure I observe 2. That this Construction of the Doctor 's determines against K. Charles II. as fully as is possible For he was driven into Banishment before he could gain his Right And the Rump and Cromwel mounted the Seat of Government And the King his Father dyed dispossessed of the Crown So that by the Doctor 's Reasoning the People were not only disingaged from the Successionary part of the Oath but were bound to stand by the Commonwealth and oppose the Restauration If any one questions K. Charles I. his being dispossessed at his Death he may please to consider That this Prince was not only Defeated in the Field and made Prisoner by his Rebellious Subjects But there was a High Court of Justice erected to try him for Treason The Supream Power and Authority was declared to be in the Commons of England And Monday 29. Ian. 1648. the Day before his Majesties Martyrdom The Commons in the Name of the present Parliament enact That in all Courts of Law Justice c. And in all Writs Grants c. instead of the Name Style Test or Title of the King heretofore used that from thenceforth the Name Style c. of Custodes Libertatis Angliae shall be used and no other In short the King's Name was enacted to be struck out in all judicial Proceedings in the date of the Year of our Lord in Juries in Fines in Indictments for Trespass and Treason From these unquestionable Matters of Fact it 's manifest beyond contradiction That the King had not so much as the Shadow of Authority left him but was perfectly out of Possession before he lost his Life I shall draw one Advantage more from this Citation and so dismiss it The Inference is this That Treason lies against the King though out of Possession For the Regecides who were not comprehended in the Act of Indemnity were excepted for Sentencing to Death or Signing the Instrument of the horrid Murther or being Instrumental in taking away the Life of King Chales I. For this Reason They are left to be proceeded against as Traytors to his late Majesty according to the Laws of England If the Doctor desires another Instance that Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession he may receive Satisfaction from the first 12 Years Reign of King Charles the Second For in this Act of Indemnity it 's said That by occasion of great Wars and Troubles that have for many Years past been in this Kingdom divers of his Majesties Subjects are fallen into and be obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties And to the intent that no Crime committed against his Majesty or Royal Father shall hereafter rise in Judgment or be brought in Question against any of them to the least Endamagement of them either in Lives Liberties or Estates his Majesty is pleased that it may be Enacted That all Treasons Misprisions of Treasons acted or done since the 1. Ian. 1637. to the 24. of Iune 1660. shall be Pardoned Released c. From this Act we may observe 1. That though the King was newly restored at the making of this Act it 's said notwithstanding Divers of his Subjects not his Fathers had for many Years past been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties c. which is a plain Argument that as his Reign was dated from the Death of K. Ch. I. so they looked upon the People of England as his Subjects from that time and that his Authority to punish was entire during his Dispossession otherwise they could not have been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties for acting against him 2. The King pardoned all Crimes committed against Himself Which would have risen up in Judgment and Endamaged his Subjects in their Lives Liberties or Estates Some of which Crimes as they can amount to no less than Treason so they must relate to the time of the Usurpation because the King was but very lately entered upon the actual Administration of the Government Neither do we read of any Treasons committed against the King from the 29 th of May to the 24 th of Iune which was the utmost term to which the Pardon extended 3. All Treasons Misprision of Treason c. excepting those excepted are Pardoned from Ianuary 1. 1637. to Iune 24. 1660. Now if Treason did not lye against a King though out of Possession this Pardon should have reached no farther then 1648. because then K. Charles I. was Murthered and his then Majesty deprived of his Kingdoms till the Year 1660. The General Pardon I say ought to have stopped at 1648. unless we can imagine the King intended to rank those among Traytors who appeared for his own Interest and to pardon the Treasons committed against Cromwel and the Rump which is a Supposition sufficiently Romantick especially if we observe That the pretended Indictments of High Treason against any of the usurped Powers are considered by themselves in the next Chapter and pronounced null and void And the Styles of the Usurpation Keepers of the Liberties of England Protectors c. notwithstanding their plenary Possession are declared to be most Rebellious Wicked Trayterous and Abominable and Detested by this present Parliament And why all these hard Words Because these Names of Authority when misplaced Were opposite in the highest Degree to his Majesties most just and undoubted Right That the Doctor may not complain for want of Evidence in this Matter I shall cite him a Proclamation of both Houses for Proclaiming King Charles the Second Dated May 8. 1660. It begins thus Although it can be no way doubted but that his Majesties Right and Title to his Crowns and Kingdoms is and was every way COMPLEATED by the Death of his most Royal Father c. without the Ceremony or Solemnity of a Proclamation Yet since the Armed Violence of these many Years last past has hitherto deprived us of any such Opportunity wherein we might express our Loyalty and Allegiance to his Majesty We therefore c. Now if the King 's Right was every way Compleated at his Fathers Death and the Allegiance of the Subject was due to him before his Restauration than
Circumcision because they were so commanded by the King who had the actual Government of their Country and sufficient power to crush them upon their Refusal From whence it follows That those Men of Resolution who were tortured for their Noncompliance and whom the Apostle is supposed so highly to commend threw away their Lives when they ought to have kept them and were Self-Murtherers instead of Martyrs He can't say these Precepts they were commanded to transgress carried any moral Obligation in them He must therefore recur to his Distinction between Humane and Divine Laws but this Expedient will not do his Business for I have proved that both of them as to their Authority are equally Divine Now as to the Matter in dispute it 's granted that God as universal Lord may alter the Seat of Property and Dominion and transfer one Man's Right to another but we ought not to conclude he has done it except we can prove our new Claim by the Course of Humane Justice or express Revelation Having shewn from the Principles of the Convocation that they cannot understand Providence and Thorough Settlement as the Doctor does without the plainest Inconsistency with themselves I shall proceed to give a distinct Answer to the Passages cited by him 1. To prove that Princes who have no Legal Right may have God's Authority He tells us the Convocation teach That the Lord in advancing Kings c. is not bound to those Laws he prescribeth others and therefore commanded Iehu a Subject to be anointed King From whence the Doctor infers That what God did by Prophets in Israel by express Nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms without any regard to Succession or Legal Titles This he affirms as the Doctrine of the Convocation and attempts to prove it from their saying That the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim or Interest which they can challenge In answer to this we may observe First That upon Iehu's being anointed by the Prophet he is called the lawful King of Israel and Ioram his Master is said to be his Subject Now if Ioram was Iehu's Subject it was Treason for him to attempt the Recovery of his Kingdom and consequently he could have no Legal Right after Dispossession For if Iehu was Lawful King then Ioram the dispossessed Prince had no Right to recover unless two opposite and contesting Claims can have a Legal Right to the same Thing which certainly is a Contradiction in Law From hence one if not both of these Conclusions must necessary follow 1. Either that his Distinction of Legal and Divine Right which he coined to answer an Objection is Chimerical and then the Difficulty he propos'd remains unanswered Or 2. If there was any singular Advantage in Iehu's Case because he was anointed by God's immediate Designation then it follows that Revelation about the Disposal of Crowns is a much safer Warrant then that which the Doctor calls Providence and that we can't argue with the same Authority from the one as from the other though the Doctor is pleased to affirm the contrary viz What God did by Prophets in Israel c. he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms Where by Providence we must understand the Doctor means Success Now that the Convocation does not suppose Revelation and Success equivalent to justify Alterations in Government but makes a wide Difference between them will appear from the Consideration of the Place before us They teach us in the instance of Iehu That God in advancing Kings is not bound to those Laws which he prescribes others Which is a plain Intimation that where Governours are not changed by God's express Order Allegiance ought to be paid according to the Direction of each respective Constitution For those Laws of Subjection which God is here said to prescribe others can be no other than the Laws which establish the Rights of the Crown in each particular Country which Laws according to the reasoning of this Passage are to be inviolably observed where God does not expresly interpose to the contrary And therefore in their Canon upon this Place they determine That if any Man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might Lawfully imitate the said Fact of Elizeus who caused Iehu to be anointed in anointing Successors to Kings which had otherwise no just Interest Title c. to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign c. by the Example of Iehu except it might first plainly appear that there are now Prophets sent extraordinarily from God with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf he doth greatly Err. And since the Convocation condemns the removing of Princes without particular Orders from Heaven It 's plain they could not believe that every effectual Revolution had God's Approbation For if they did believe that God does that by his Providence now which he did formerly by his Prophets i. e. If they did believe his Will is to be interpreted by Events and that he approves and acts in all Revolutions which are successful Why do they pronounce all Practices of this Nature Unlawful except they are warranted by express and immediate Authority from Heaven Certainly they could not declare that Unlawful which they believed to be God Almighty's doing What is the Reason they tell us No Man must imitate the Example of Iehu thô like him he should be chosen by the Captains of the Army and have Power and the Consent of the People to dethrone the Lawful Prince If they thought Revelation and Success Principles of equal Certainty If it was their Opinion that Providence was always on the prevailing side and that Kings had no Right to govern any longer than the major part of their Subjects were willing to obey them The Doctor 's Instance to prove that Providence or Success is a certain Manifestation of the Divine Approbation is clearly against him For thô the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Claim Title c. Yet it 's evident by this Example and the Canon made upon it that the Convocation did not think this was ever done without God's particular Commission For it 's positively affirmed by this Reverend Synod that Ehud and Othoniel the Deliverers mentioned in this place Were raised up by God Almighty with a full Assurance of their lawful Callings and made Judges immediately by Him without which Prerogatives it had been altogether unlawful for them to have done as they did Because that God foresaw what Mischief private Men as all Subjects are in respect of their Prince might do under the Colour of these Examples Now if it 's unlawful for any Person to step out of his private Sphere and to act counter to the Laws of Subjection and common Justice without
Apostle Commands us to submit to the King as Supream and unto Governors as unto them who are sent by him Now if we are bound to submit to Subordinate Governors by virtue of their Delegation because they are sent by the King or Supream Power It follows that when they are not sent by him but Challenge our submission upon the score of independent Right they are not to be obeyed Suppose then the Emperor's Procurator of Iudea had set up for himself in the Apostles Time and brought over the Sanedrim and the Majority of the Jews to his Party and possessed himself of the Civil and Military Power of that Nation were the Jews bound to submit to the Procurator or not By the Doctor 's rule undoubtedly they were For here is nothing less than his Through Settlement and by consequence Providence and Divine Authority to oblige them to acquiesce But on the contrary St. Peter's Doctrine teaches us to look upon this Procurator as a Treasonable Usurper and to have nothing to do with his Settlement For we cannot suppose him acting in his Masters Name when he Rebels against him unless we can imagine the Emperor would grant a Commission to fight and destroy himself If therefore the reason of our submission to inferior Magistrates is founded in their Subordination in their being sent by the Supream as is evident by the Apostles Argument Then certainly we are not to obey them how successful soever they may be when they act upon their own pretended Authority and against him that sent them I can't foresee what the Doctor can reply excepting that Iudea was but a small part of the Roman Empire and therefore a general Revolt in that Country alone could not plead God's Authority from their Success nor oblige the Noncomplying Subject to Obedience To this I answer That if we are to obey the Higher Powers i. e. those who can crush us without respect to the Legality of their Title If Soveraign Force and Soveraign Authority are the same then we ought to obey them as far as their Power reaches For so far their Divine Authority must extend If the Revolt be general and the Power undisputed the Largeness of Dominion is not at all material For as has been observed the Boundaries of Empire are of an inferior Consideration They depend only upon Pacts and Humane Laws and ought not to stand in competition against Providence and hinder the exercise of a Divine Right God without question can change the Limits as well as the Governors of a Kingdom and ought not to be confined in this respect no more than in the other And since Settlement and Success is a certain Sign of Divine Authority we ought according to the Doctor to submit to every Subdivision of Power though never so illegally Cantonized as long as they keep distinct and unsubordinate to each other 3. That the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture will be manifest from the consideration of Hebr. 13.17 There the inspired Author commands the Hebrews to obey those who have the Rule over them and submit themselves I grant the place is to be understood of Church-Governors but it 's as plain by universal Practice that this Submission is to be paid to none but Lawful Spiritual Powers For if any Bishop should offer to govern another's Diocese and Usurp his See such intrusions have been always condemned by the Church and the People obliged to adhere to their first Bishop And since this Scripture concerning Ecclesiastical Rulers has been always understood of those who are Lawfully and Canonically set up though these words are not expressly in the Text why the Higher Powers should not be restrained to Magistrates Legally Constituted is somewhat hard to imagine What reason have we to suppose God should Confirm an intrusion upon the State and disallow in the Church Why should he give his Authority to Temporal Usurpers and deny it to Spiritual Are not Bishops de Facto as good as Kings of that Denomination To put the Case more home and to draw it into a narrower Compass Let us suppose according to St. Cyprian's Principle every See independent of each other and that a lawful Bishop is deposed by his People and another chosen and consecrated by the Presbytery who are the Spiritual Estates and nothing of the usual Solemnity omitted Now I desire to know whether the New Man is a Bishop and has a Divine Right to govern the Diocese If the Doctor says Yes he contradicts the Universal Church and destroys the Episcopal Authority If he says No I would gladly hear his Reason The Person we are speaking of is generally submitted to and called Bishop and wears the Episcopal Habit and had all the Ceremonies performed at his Consecration and is disown'd by none but a few obstinate People and what would you have more If you say the Clergy were under Tyes of Canonical Obedience to their former Bishop that neither They nor the Laity have any Power to depose their Bishop or to ordain a new One that such Proceedings are contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Church-Government and subversive of its Monarchical Constitution This is all Truth I grant but am afraid it will disoblige the Doctor 's Argument For under Favor are not the States bound by natural and sworn Allegiance to their King What Right have the Members to depose the Head and Inferiors to displace their Supreme And what Law is there to chuse a Prince in an Hereditary Kingdom By what Authority do they these things And who gave them this Authority I put these Questions to the Doctor because I hope he will be so kind as to take them for no more than Enquiries Farther By the Doctor 's Assistance it may be urged That in the first Ages of Christianity Bishops were nominated by the Holy Ghost as Kings were in Israel and Elections apparently governed by Miracles and Inspiration as we may learn from Clemens Romanus And as it hapned afterwards in the Case of Fabian Bishop of Rome But now since Miracles are ceased God does that in the Church by his Providence which he did at first by express Nomination Therefore though one Layman should consecrate another his Episcopal Character ought to be acknowledged against the Canonical Bishop provided the great Body of the Diocese has submitted to him and the whole Administration of Ecclesiastical Government is in his hands and every thing is done in his Name and those who won't submit can be crushed by him And if any one objects against this Bishop de Facto I hope the Doctor 's parallel Reasons will satisfie him For first Here is as good a spiritual Settlement according to our Author's interpretation of that word as a Man would wish To go on No Man can make himself a Bishop any more than a King whether God will or no. God is then said to set up a Bishop when by his Providence he advances
all Cases of Possession Say you so Sir Then Athaliah ought to have been obeyed notwithstanding Ioash his Title if she could have kept the Mint and the Power in her Hands Now if this be not true as the Doctor must grant then our Saviour's Argument does not rely wholly on Possession but upon Right to Possession For that the Divine Entail of the Crown upon David's Family does not make the Case exempt and particular has been shown already 3. We are to observe That our Saviour left the Civil Rights of Society in the same State he found them He did not intend to alter the Laws of Common Justice to weaken the Titles of Princes and put them into a worse condition then private Men. So that if according to the Principles of Reason and the Laws of particular Kingdoms whoever has a Right to the Crown ought to have the Obedience of the Subject we cannot conclude our Saviour's Answer has made any alteration in the Case 4. If the Royal Image and Superscription always supposes Possession and infers Obedience His Majesty at St. Germains is still the Doctor 's Soveraign And he ought to have continued his Submission to him till his Money had been cryed down And which is more surprizing the Subject must be bound to two opposite and contrary Allegiances as long as the Coin of the two Contesting Princes is currant among us which the Doctor owns to be an impracticable Absurdity What he observes concerning the Prophesy of the Four Monarchies not being at an End is somewhat surprizing All People agree that the Roman Monarchy has the last of the Four and that has had its Period long since Now it 's a little strange that Events should be foretold concerning Things that are not And that the Prophesies concerning the Four Monarchies should extend to greater lengths of Time than the Monarchies themselves But what if the Four Monarchies were not at an End Must we comply with all successful Disorders under pretence of fulfilling Prophesies though we neither know their Meaning nor the Time of their Accomplishment Does God need the Wickedness of Men to bring his own Counsels to pass Doubtless he who has Omnipotence in his Hand can change Times and Seasons set up Kings and remove Kings as in his Wisdom he thinks fit without obliging the Subject to break the Laws of their Country and to fail in their Allegiance when it 's most needed God in whose Hand are the Hearts of Kings who has the disposal of Life and Death of the Passions and Tempers of Men may change his Representatives as often as he pleases without pitching upon such Methods which without a Revelation must of necessity in a great measure confound the Notions of Right and Wrong encourage Violence and weaken the good Correspondence and mutual Securities between King and People But the continuation of the Doctor 's Reason for Compliance is still more extraordinary viz. Under the Fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Antichrist is to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes And are we obliged to comply with every Revolution to swim down every Tide of State for fear the Kingdom of Antichrist should not increase fast enough Are we as much bound to support Violence and clap Justice under Hatches as the Iews were to obey the express Orders of the Prophet Jeremiah only because the Doctor fancies the Prophecy of the Four Monarchies is not at an End If this be not Enthusiasm which the Doctor denies pray God it be not something worse But to consider his Argument more fully I must go back to his 12th Page where he gives in his Reasons to prove That now God governs the World removes Kings and sets up Kings only by his Providence By which he means nothing but Force and Success let the means by which they are gained be never so unaccountable These Advantages though they come from Hell are always attended with Divine Authority and draw the Allegiance of the Subject along with them And because Soveraign and rampant Wickedness sounds but harshly and is very unlikely to have the Entail of all these Priviledges he gilds it over with the pompous Name of Providence This he says is God's Government of the World by an invisible Power whereby he directs determines and over-rules all Events in distinction from his more visible Government by Oracles Prophets c. So that now it seems neither Scripture nor Law nor Reason signifie any thing towards the stating the Right of Kings and the Obedience of Subjects No We must submit to the Infallibility of the Sword which is the only proper Judge to decide all Controversies of State and why not of Religion too We must conclude that all Civil Confusions all Publick Injustice though never so horrid is directed by God Almighty And all Events how impious soever they may be in their Causes and Consequences are determined and over-ruled by his Providence To fortifie this extraordinary Position he attempts to make God's Permissions and Approbations the same as to Events Though the Distinction between these two is both necessary and generally acknowledged But to make God as the Doctor does the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies is an untrue and dangerous Proposition For First It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture Secondly It makes God the Abetter and Maintainer of Sin Thirdly It destroys the Notion of his Patience 1. It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture For though the Doctor affirms That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of Events these following Citations not to mention any more will shew he is mistaken For don't we read that the Devils besought our Saviour that he would suffer them to enter into the Herd of Swine and he suffered them Now by the Doctor 's Principle our Saviour must either have forced the Devils into the Swine or at least have raised their Inclination to enter and concurred with it But the Scripture speaks no such Language It affirms no more than a bare Permission of the Devil's Malice Another Proof to confirm the Distinction between what God does and what he permits as to Events may be taken from Acts 13.18 where God is said to suffer the Manners of the Israelites forty Years in the Wilderness He did not as the Doctor 's Proposition supposes direct them in the making of the Golden Calf He did not determine their Idolatries nor over rule them into all their Murmurings and Disobedience Farther Was not the destroying Iob's Cattle and Servants and the afflicting his Person an Event And will our Author say That all this was brought to pass by the Influence and Direction of Providence And that the Devil would not have used Iob thus hardly if he had not been over ruled by God Almighty I am sorry the Doctor should support his new
puts me in mind of Epicurus's Deities whom for Fashion sake he supposed to exist but gave them such a slender Constitution that it was impossible for them to hold out against the least rencounter of his Atoms Just so kind is the Doctor to a Prince whose Title stands upon the Fundamentals of the Government For what does this legal Right signifie Are the Subjects bound to restore him No. This would oblige them to Two opposite Allegiances Are they at Liberty to stand neuter Not that neither For Allegiance signifies all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King And if this as the Doctor affirms falls all to the share of him who has the actual Administration of Government I 'm afraid there will be but little left for the other And as if all this was not sufficient to Mortify his legal Prince he Musters the Laws and Lawyers against him And says it s a very wise Constitution which obliges us to pay our Allegiance to a Prince who is not the legal Heir i. e. to an Usurper And the Reasons and Order and Necessity of Government require it The Reason and Necessity of Government is a very serviceable Principle to the Author whether he does not misapply and overstrain it shall be farther examined afterwards At present I shall only desire to be informed of the Doctor Whether it 's any part of the business of Reason to do an unreasonable Thing what necessity there is to destroy Justice and establish a Revolt Indeed if there was a Law that a King should forfeit his Kingdom as soon as the Disobedience of his Subjects should oblige him to retire though the singularity of such an Act would be amazingly Remarkable yet it would not be absolutely unintelligible But this is not the Case For both the Doctor and the Dispute supposes that the King 's Right continues after he is Dispossessed Now this is that which makes it superlatively Wonderful His Right continues in full Force and yet as far as the Laws can provide he is barred from all possible means of Recovery For it seems the Subjects are bound to stand by the Usurper and to distress and fight the King de Iure if he offers to regain that which they own belongs to him He has a Right it 's granted as much as ever say you so Then I hope it 's to govern and if so his Subjects are bound to re-establish him Hold there cries the Doctor They are bound to stand by the Usurper I confess I always thought that if a King had a Right to the Crown the Subjects were obliged to pay him Allegiance Right one would think should relate to something For to have a Right to nothing is to have no Right But the see improvements of Time Here we have a Right without a Property a King without a Subject One who has a legal Right to govern and yet all the Kingdom has a legal Right and a legal Duty to kill him if he goes about it Thus the Doctor makes the Laws fall foul upon each other And gives the People a legal Right to oppose a legal Right in the Crown Which is somewhat a plainer though not a truer Contradiction than his bringing in a Divine and a Legal Right clashing with each other For here the repugnancy lyes in the Constitution so that the Word Providence which uses to be so serviceable can give him no Assistance In short to tell a Man he is a King and yet to assign all his Subjects over to another and to barr him all possible means of Recovery is such a Jest of Iniquity and supposes the Legislators so incomprehensibly Singular and Unreasonable that for the Credit of our Countrey we ought not to interpret the Laws in such a wild Sense If the Doctor had a mind to turn St. Stephen's into Bedlam and make the Nation Mad by Representation he could scarcely have gon a more effectual way to work To conclude this business if the Subjects are obliged to defend an Usurper in Possession as much as if he was their rightful Prince I would gladly know what priviledge the one has above the other I grant the Doctor allows the Dispossessed legal Prince a Right to make War upon the Usurper But then as he has ordered the Matter he can have none of his Subjects to help him but those he brings along with him Besides this Principle gives two contending Parties a Right to the same Thing and makes a War justifyable on both sides which is something more than usual In answer to a Second Objection he observes That an Oath of Allegiance can oblige no longer than the Regal Character continues which is most true But his Inference concerning the Grounds of the Oaths being removed is altogether inconclusive For where the Crown is settled upon Hereditary Right and fortifyed by irresistable Authority There the King must necessarily continue in Being as long as the Man Because the Subjects can have no Power to call him to an Account or displace him The Doctor encounters a Third Objection but with the same Success The Objection is That we swear to defend the King 's Right and the Right of his Heirs c. To which he returns That we dont swear to keep them in the Throne Right For some Mens practises would make one believe we swore to throw them out as soon as we had an Opportunity But the keeping our Prince in the Throne is sometimes impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion Does it therefore follow that we must joyn such a prosperous Rebellion and support it with our Interest Is it the Meaning of the Oath that we should desert our Prince in his Distress and refuse him when he has most occasion for our Service If Subjects should swear with such Declarations as these there are few Princes would thank them for their solemn Security I grant it 's sometimes impossible for us to keep our Prince in Possession against a Rebellion But certainly we ought not to follow a Multitude to do Evil. We ought to stand upon the Reserve and not fortifie the Rebels by our Revolt Soldiers don't swear That they will always get the Victory for that may be out of their Power But if they endeavour to debauch the Fidelity of the Army and make seditious Harrangues to defame the General they very much misbehave themselves Much less is it agreeable to change their sides upon the loss of a Pass or a Battel 'T is true upon the Prospect of an Exchange they may sometimes submit to be made Prisoners of War But if their Surrender will not be accepted without translating their Allegiance they ought rather to carry their Honour and Honesty into the other World than take their Life upon such scandalous Conditions To this Firmness in Loyalty not only Christians but Heathens upon whom Virtue and Bravery had made any considerable Impression always thought themselves obliged What the Doctor adds
Support of Authority it being sufficiently evident from the Reason of the thing For First every Subject receives Security and Protection from the King and therefore ought to protect his legal Protector For as all Persons receive the common Benefits of Government so they ought to joyn in a common Defence of it Secondly all Persons are born equally Subjects from whence it follows That the essential Duties of Subjection of which Defence of the King is one chief Branch must necessarily extend to them all Thirdly all Persons are obliged to venture their Lives for the publick Safety and to appear against the Enemies of their Country But the direction of this Affair belongs solely to his Management who is vested with the Power of the Sword and has the Prerogative of making Peace and War Those whom he declares the publick Enemies are to be accounted such and no others To him only it belongs to judge of the bigness of the Danger to proportion the Preparation for War to appoint the time and place for Battel By vertue of which Privilege all his Subjects are bound to comply with his Appointment and to bring their Persons into the Field upon demand If we look into the Laws of our own Country we shall find them clear and decisive against the Doctor In the famous Case of the Post nati argued before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber 4 Iac. 1. all the Judges agreed that Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is beyond the Circuit of the Laws That is the Subjects are bound to defend the King in what place soever he resides whether in his Dominions or elsewhere For as these Reverend Judges go on Every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this i. e. Defence being a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects Now if the Defence of the King's Person and Kingdoms is a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects or necessarily implied in the Notion of Subjection then every Man is obliged to be a Soldier whenever his Prince shall think fit to employ him in that manner This is no more than the Resolution of all the Judges in Calvin's Case who declare That every Subject is by his natural Ligeance bound to obey and serve his Sovereign And since this Obligation of the Subject is thus general and comprehensive it must certainly hold in Cases of greatest Necessity and Importance The Duty of an English Subject is more particularly described in the old Oath of Ligeance mentioned by Britton which as Sir Edward Coke adds is yet commonly in use to this day in every Leet and in our Books The Tenour of it runs thus You shall swear That from this Day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and Truth and Faith shall bear of Life and Member and terrene Honour c. This Oath as Sir Edward Coke observes elsewhere is to be taken of all above twelve Years of Age. The Oath of Allegiance made 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. takes in the same Compass of Duty For there the Subject swears To bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs c and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever This if it were duly performed were enough in all Conscience and as much as can be expected from any Soldier unless the being listed obliges a Man to Impossibilities Now this Oath every Person of the Age of Eighteen years is bound to take if required by Authority Lastly That the extent of Allegiance reaches to the assisting the King in the Feild we may learn from 11 H. 7. c. 1. where we are told that The King calling to mind the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince in his Wars against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him c. This Statute we may observe does not found the Subjects Duty of asserting their Prince in his Wars upon their Military Oath and Possession but upon their Allegiance and therefore since all Subjects owe a Natural Allegiance to their King they ought to defend him in the Feild when and where he shall command their Service And thus if the Judges and Laws may be allowed to determine the Case the Doctors fine speculations about Non-assistance must come to nothing His distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance into the Natural Duty of Subjects and an Obligation superinduced by Law is both ill founded and misapplyed First This distinction has no Foundation either in Reason or Law Our Oath of Allegiance does not extend our Obedience as Bishop Sanderson well observes and make us more Subjects than we were before It only gives a new Security by the Solemnity of the Action for the performance of that to which we were antecedently obliged The Oath finds us Subjects otherwise we might refuse it it does not make us such And therefore those who have not Sworn such an Allegiance are bound to all the Duties of Subjection contained in it This Sworn Obedience is enjoyned by Authority only as a Recognition of our Natural Duty to which it adds nothing but the Enforcement of a Religious Circumstance Which is agreeable to the Judges Resolution in the forementioned Case of the Post nati That Allegiance was before Laws And in Calvin's Case it 's averred That a True and Faithful Ligeance and Obedience which is all we are sworn to is an incident inseparable to every Subject as soon as he is Born Secondly As the Doctors distinction is Chimerical so the Application of it is Mistaken and Unreasonable He says Natural Allegiance is due only to him who has the actual Administration of the Government Natural Allegiance under Favour can be due to none but him who is our our Natural Prince no more than Filial Obedience can be challenged by any excepting our Natural Parents But Possession abstracted from Right does not make any Man our Natural Prince no not in the Doctor 's Opinion For he elsewhere tells us That the Kings of Egypt and Babylon never had a Legal and Natural Right to govern Israel By which Words it's plain he makes a Legal and Natural Right to be the same But bare Possession does not give a legal Right and by consequence not a Natural one Thirdly Natural Allegiance is due to him who is King by the Laws of Nature but he who can prove his Title by nothing but the Administration of Government is no King by the Laws of Nature For Nature i. e. right Reason does not found Dominion in Power nor gives any Countenance to Injustice And if an Usurper has no Prerogatives of Royalty from the Laws of Nature then Natural Allegiance cannot be challenged upon this Score For a Principle which gives a Man no Right to govern can't lay an Obligation
upon any Persons to obey him The Laws of Nature enjoyn us Obedience to our Kings But they don't tell us That every powerful Pretender ought to be acknowledged as such But refer us to the Constitution for Satisfaction For Authority and Iurisdiction is as much a Property as Land and therefore the Measure of it ought only to be taken from the Laws of each respective Countrey which brings me to the Doctor 's Application of legal Allegiance which he affirms is Sworn only to a King in Possession And by his reasoning he lets us plainly understand that this Allegiance is due no longer than the Possession continues To this I conceive the Doctor 's Arguments will afford a sufficient ground for a Reply For he explains Legal Allegiance by Maintenance or Defence and says it signifies no more than to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne as having a legal Right to it If it signifies thus much its sufficient For if we are sworn to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne because he has a Legal Right to it we ought to defend him as long as this Legal Right continues For as long as the Grounds of Allegiance remain in full Force the Consequent Duties ought to be performed Now the Doctor grants a Prince's Legal Right remains after his Dispossession and that he may insist upon his Claim when he finds his opportunity He argues farther That we can legally take this Oath only to a King in Possession because it must be Administred by his Authority To this I Answer First That from hence it follows that whenever a lawful Prince has been possessed of the Government those who Swore to him during his Possession are bound to perform the Contents of their Oath for then by the Doctor 's Argument it was lawfully Administred Secondly To put the Matter beyond Dispute we are to observe That the King's Authority continues after Dispossession This waving other Authorities I shall prove from the Two other famous Cases of the Post nati above mentioned reported by Sir Francis Moore and Sir Edward Coke in both which we have the Resolution and Concurrence of all the Judges In the First among other Things it 's affirmed as unquestionable Law That Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King not the Politick For Instance Si le Roy soit expulse per Force auter Usurpe uncore le Allegiance nest toll comment que le Ley soit toll That is If the King is by Force driven out of his Kingdom and another Usurps notwithstanding this the Allegiance of the Subject does not cease though the Law does Secondly Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is sometimes beyond the circuit of the Laws For every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this being a Thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects without respect to the extent of the Laws of that Nation where they were born whereby it manifestly appears that Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King From this Resolution of the Reverend Judges these Inferences necessarily follow 1. Since Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King it must be due to him as long as his natural Person is in being i. e. as long as he lives So that Possession or Dispossession does not alter the Case 'T is true they make a change in the King's Fortune but the Allegiance of the Subject remains the same 2. When the Prince is ejected by force the Laws are said to cease or expire From whence it follows that the Usurper has no Authority to execute Justice or administer any part of the Government which overthrows all the Pretences for a K. de Facto 3. Allegiance extends as far as Defence and does not as the Judges observe depend upon the Formalities of Law but is founded in natural Subjection And as a King may command his Subjects of one Kingdom to defend him elsewhere though they are obliged by no express Provisions to travel with or transport their Allegiance into another Country so by Parity of Reason all Subjects in vertue of their general Allegiance are bound to defend their Prince in their own Country thô there should be no particular Laws assigned to bring them upon Duty which is more than the Doctor will allow 4. If Allegiance reaches as far as Defence then without question it ought to be paid to the King when dispossessed for then it is he has the greatest need of his Subjects Assistance 5. If Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King and is due to him out of Possession then it cannot be due to an Usurper in Possession For this would oblige us to two opposite Allegiances which as the Doctor observes is absurd and impossible 6. If Allegiance follows the King's natural Person his Royal Authority must do so too For an Obligation to obey always supposes a Right to command and if the Sovereign Authority always attends upon the Person of the King then a Commission granted by a King out of Possession must be a valid Commission And thus the Doctor 's great Question which he was not Lawyer enough to decide is answered against him Calvin's Case is full to the same purpose which because I have already mentioned I shall cite the less of it now In this solemn and deliberate Determination it 's resolved by the Reverend Judges First That Allegiance and Faith are due to a King by the Law of Nature They must mean a Rightful King For the Law of Nature does not encourage Injustice and Usurpation Secondly they affirm That the Law of Nature is part of the Law of England and cite Bracton Fortescue c. for this point And Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable From whence I infer That if Allegiance is due to a Rightful King by the Law of Nature if this Law is incorporated into our English Constitution and of an immutable Obligation from hence it necessarily follows That as long as we have a Rightful Prince our Allegiance is part of his Right and ought to be exerted for his Service Secondly they observe That in the Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers Father and Son to cover the Treason hatched in their Hearts invented this damnable and damned Opinion That Homage and the Oath of Ligeance was more by reason of the King's Crown that is his Politick Capacity than by reason of the Person of the King Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That the King might be removed for Maleadministration 2. That he might be reformed per Aspertee 3. That his Lieges were bound to govern in aid of him and in default of him Now if it is such an impious and unreasonable Assertion to maintain that Homage and Ligeance is tyed to the King 's Politick Capacity Then it must follow his Natural Person which makes the Resolution of this Case the same
is not Hereditary or the Royal Line is extinct to the Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King From whence it follows that where there is a Regular Succession established and an undoubted Title there meer Possession of Power does not make a King If the Dr. can confute this Reasoning he may remember it is his own But in my opinion it is unanswerable and so I shall leave it and proceed to the 3 d. Which he calls the True Answer to this Text of Hosea by which Character we may understand what he thought of his two former In this Answer he affirms That Israel was originally a Theocracy he must mean after the Revolt of the Ten Tribes as well as Judah and though God at their request allowed them to have Kings yet He reserved the appointment of them to himself and appointed Jeroboam to be their first King Therefore the fault the Prophet taxes them with is their omitting to consult God for his Nomination after Jeroboam 's and Jehu 's Line were cut off for these were the only Kings named by God But by the Dr's Argument the Ten Tribes should have consulted God about a new King immediately after Ieroboam's death because his Line was cut off for the Crown was promised to his Posterity upon condition of his own good Behaviour which Condition was notoriously broken by him I might likewise observe that it 's very unlikely the Prophet Hosea who lived so many Generations after Ieroboam and Nadab his Son should charge the Children of Israel with an Omission at so great a distance of Time which no Mortal then living could possibly beguilty of But to come closer to the Dr. The Theocracy was determined when Baasha made himself King as the Learned Dr. Spencer has proved to satisfaction The Theocracy says he was mightily weakened and in a manner expiring under Saul and David but was quite as it were extinguished under Solomon When the Kingdom was made successive and the Ark fixed in the Temple and the Vrim supposed to be no longer Oracular Then it was plain God had given up the Government and resigned the political Supremacy to the Kings of Israel If the Reader is desirous to see this Argument managed at length he may consult the Author for to avoid tediousness I have cited him but briefly Indeed I need not make much search after Authorities for the Dr. in his Case of Resistance speaks as home as one would desire he there observes That after Saul was chosen King the Government ordinarily descended not by God's immediate choice but by the Right of Succession though now he is pleased to contradict it And having given an account how the Face and Motions of the Government were changed and that the Jewish Monarchs in their Councils in their State and Defence were conformable to their Neighbours He adds Therefore the Government of Israel by Kings was like other Human Government liable to all the defects and miscarriages which other Governments are whereas while the Government was immediately in God's Hands the Administration as He goes on was under a quite different management So that we see the Dr. has given up the Theocracy rather sooner than the Learned Author I quoted before Now if the Theocracy was determined before Israel and Iudah were parted into two Kingdoms we have farther Reasons to believe it had its period after their division especially in the Kingdom of Israel for in that Kingdom there was neither Tabernacle nor Temple nor Ark there was no regular authorized Priesthood no Vrim and Thummim no Symbols of God's Presence excepting the Calves at Dan and Bethel which were unacceptable to Him 'T is true they had Prophets sometimes sent them so had the Ninevites and other neighbouring Nations where they were very far from being under God's immediate Government And therefore though the Theocracy should have continued till this time in the Kingdom of Iudah we have no reason to believe the Ten Tribes in the same condition for they wanted the Signs of the Theocratical Superintendency the Organs of Inspiration and the Ministers by which God was wont to execute his Orders and direct the State Now what does the Dr. bring to confute himself and the Reverend Dean and the Inference I have drawn from them Why nothing but that Ieroboam and Iehu were made Kings by God's immediate Designation But this Remark does not come up to the point for Nebuchadnezzar had several Countries given him by God's express Designation and yet the Babylonian Monarchy was never taken for a Theocracy The Dr's next Essay is to prove That this Doctrin of Allegiance to the present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience and therefore both must be true or both false This Argument he knows some men will not like Which is no wonder for I am pretty sure it 's no good one as will appear by examining his Proof He tells us Passive-Obedience is founded on this Principle That God invests Kings with his Authority True God does invest them with his Authority when they are either appointed by his immediate Designation or claim their Soveraignty by the Constitution of the Country for God declares That the Higher Powers are his Ministers and commands us to submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for his sake and confirms Human Laws with his own Authority So that where the Laws make it Treason to resist the Prince there the Gospel makes it Damnation And upon this Bottom the Doctrin of Non-Resistance stands But it does not follow from hence that Illegal Powers are vested with God's Authority Yes says our Author this Principle equally proves that all Kings who have received a Soveraign Authority from God and are in the actual Administration of it must be obeyed and not resisted But here the Dr. takes the matter in dispute for granted he supposes a King and an Usurper to be Terms equivalent he confounds the Notion of Authority and Force and inferrs a Divine Right from the actual Administration of Power Now I have made it appear that King is the Name of Right not of meer Force that Authority and Power are things vastly different that Usurpers have no Authority from God neither soveraign nor unsoveraign and that their actual Administration of Government is no more an Evidence of a Commission from Heaven than any other Success of private Injustice Therefore unless he can disprove what I have urged upon these Heads there is no danger of his making Passive-Obedience dependent upon his new Scheme To the remainder of this Paragraph I have given an Answer already which needs not be repeated He complains the Old-Church-of England Principles limit the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Injured Subjects for it seems God has no way to do this but either to turn the Princes Hearts or to take them out of the World Very well And is not
Vsurpers the same p. 117. No difference between an Human and a Divine Intail as to the Firmness of the Settlement p. 125. The Object from Hosea 8.4 defended with some Remarks upon the Iewish Theocracy p. 130. His Doctrin not founded upon the same Principle with the Doctrin of Passive Obedience p. 133. His Objection That the disowning Illegal Powers limits the Providence of God in Governing Kings c. answered p. 134. His Argument drawn from the Necessity of Government considered and Counter-Principles set up against him p. 136 c. The Relation between Government and Allegiance examined p. 144. The Dr's Objections against an immoveable Allegiance unsatisfactory p. 145. The Vsurpation under the Rump and Cromwel and had Divine Authority by the Dr's Principles p. 148. Absolom a providential Monarch p. 155. The Insufficiency of the Dr's Plea from a National Submission and the consent of the Estates p. 157. ERRATA PAGE 4 Line 28 after nullum dele in p. 8. l. 23. after the add Dr's p. 9. l. 5. after were add a p. 10. l. 26. aft own'd add p. 11. l. 36. for these r. those p. 14. l. 9. for fall r. fell p. 17. l. 7. del by p. 17. Marg. for Heb. 12 r. Heb. 11. p. 28. l. 40. aft Canon add p. 31. l. 27. for uncouttly r. uncourtly p. 37. l. 32. for there r. here p. 42. l. 24. for any r. an p. 46. l. 27. after disallow add it p. 50. l. 14. for these r. there p. 51. l. 28. for of r. and p. 53. l. 36. Marg. for Sept. r. Lept Ibid. l. 37. for Aritogiton r. Aristogiton p. 54. l. 17. for Valena r. Valeria p. 59. l. 36. aft answer dele Ibid. add after which p. 61. l. 20. for has r. was p. 62. l. 35. after State add p. 68. l. 15. for imploys r. implies p. 69. l. 11. aft Dr. add may p. 71. l. 29. for King r. Kings p. 73. l. 12. aft we add can p. 83. l. 15. for the see r. see the p. 88. l. 4. for Crowned r. owned ibid. l. 32. aft and add the p. 93. l. 26. aft would deâ— p. 99. l. 24. for asserting r. assisting ibid. l. 25. for Possession r. Profession p. 101. l. 28. del other p. 104. l. 31. for from r. for p. 114 l. 35. aft seek add it p. 115. l. 4. for them r. him p. 118. l. 19. for Disputet r. Disputes ibid. l. 28. for remains r. remain p. 119. l. 17. for draws r. draw ibid. l. 18. for translates r. translate p 121. l. 28. for returning r. recurring p. 124. l. 30. aft Laws del and p. 125. l. 2. for them r. him p. 151. l. 4. for of r. and p. 153. l. 16. for Countries r. Counties p. 156. l. 3. for Goth r. Gath. Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE Considered c. THat we may not be surprized with the Doctors Novelties he very frankly at first acquaints us what we are to expect from him He makes no Scruple to aver That the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience or making the Legal Right of Princes the only Foundation of Allegiance is that which has perplexed the Controversy His Reason is because Allegiance can only be paid to Government he means Force and therefore it can be due to no other Title From whence it 's plain That Illegal Violence is preferable to Legal Right i. e. a Man ought not to pay his Debts to his Creditor but to atturn to the next Highway-Man he meets I wonder the Doctor who seems so much concerned for Good Manners should set the Constitution aside with so little Ceremony For if Legal Right must always give place to Unjust Power the Priviledges of Law signifie nothing except they could make a Man invincible which I fear is a Task somewhat difficult If you enquire why the Author has such a mean Opinion of Right he 'll tell you Because all Arguments from this Ground serve only to confound the Cause and the Conscience and to lead Men into dark Labyrinths of Law and History First As for History in an Hereditary Kingdom it 's no doubt a difficult Point to find out the Royal Family To distinguish a King's Son from his Daughter and the Next in Blood from Iack Cade or Wat Tyler And at this rate except matters of Fact clear up if we pretend but to know our Right hand from our Left we may be carried into a Labyrinth And Secondly As for the Laws they are as dark it seems as if the Parliaments met only to propound Riddles and proclaim unintelligible Jargon to the Nation And if the Case stands thus those Gentlemen who have endeavoured to justifie the Legality of the present Establishment were certainly out in the management of the Dispute For if Right and Wrong are not distinguishable if Good and Evil are of the same Colour if it 's unsafe to make any Enquiries into such Niceties as these for fear of wildring our Understandings then I confess all Revolutions are alike to us and ought to be complied with However the Doctor might have been a little kinder to his own Party who no doubt did their best and not have told the World that they engaged in an unnecessary Argument which it was both unfit to dispute and impossible to manage to satisfaction and that their Performances how well soever meant have served only to confound the Cause I perceive if the Doctor had not gone in to their Relief all had been lost and therefore he is resolved to make them sensible of his Assistance and not to allow them the least share in the glorious Defence of the Revolution But if they are contented with this Character I have no more to say To return to the Laws which the Doctor avoids as so many Rocks and Shelves in Dispute fit only to wrack Conscience upon Now this Character as it s far from a Complement to the English Constitution so it s somewhat surprizing to one who remembers that this Gentleman has formerly been of another mind In his Case of Resistance he does not complain that the Laws which settle the Rights of the Crown were so mysterious and hard to be understood and yet this is not that one Principle which he says he has only renounced in that Book There he asserts the Prerogative and maintains Non-resistance from the Constitution as well as from any other Topick I wonder he should lose his Law after almost seven Years improvement of Study and Conversation After all the Doctor owns that the Laws setting aside their Obscurity are good things and were they easily understood he would willingly cast the Cause upon this Issue If we could readily find where the Seat of Government is fixed who is our King and what are the great Lines of Prerogative and Subjection If we could attain to this perfect Skills in the Government he plainly intimates That the Law would then be a clear and safe Rule of
only desire to know Whether God loves Peace more than Justice Whether he delights to see Men Brethren in Iniquity and combine for the support of Violence Besides Is it for the Peace of Mankind that great Thieves should be rewarded and little Ones punished That a Man that steals a Horse must suffer as a Felon but he that steals a Kingdom and flies at nobler Quarry must be worshipped and obeyed though the right Owner is still claiming contesting and in view What is this but to encourage universal Violence to animate ill Men to more towring Flights of Ambition and to make them enlarge their Projects of Wickedness A Man need little skill in Inferences to see what an admirable Expedient this is likely to prove for the Quiet of the World The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to avoid it by saying That ambitious Spirits without a great dose of Enthusiasm can't make this Construction of his Doctrin For unless they can flatter themselves that God has ordained them to be Kings their Attempts according to his Principle will be checked And why should they not believe God has ordained them to be Kings if they find apparent Symptoms of Weakness and Decay in a Government If they perceive the Inclinations of the People for them If they can form a strong Party and have a probable Prospect of Success A moderate share of Enthusiasm with some Principles would be apt to make ambitions Men to interpret such Accidents and Advantages to be broad Intimations of the Favour of Heaven That God was designing some great Revolution and calling them to Crowns and Scepters And as for Enthusiasm it s no wonder to find the World overdosed with that especially at a time when Men pretend to understand Prophesies almost as well as those who wrote them when they can expound St. Iohn's Visions upon Piedmont and Savoy and point out the Time and Geography of a Mystery 2. This Doctrine supposes there is no such Thing as Usurpation after Possession which is not only contrary to the Language of our Laws 1 E. 4. c. 1 c. but to the common Sense of Mankind it being generally agreed by those who have any Notion of common Justice and Morality That what is unlawful to take away its unlawful to keep Which must be allowed to be true unless Violence and ill Usage are valuable Consideration for the conveying of Property Whereas by these Principles let a Man come into his Power never so unjustly Let there be never so fair a Claim continued against him yet if bare Possession gives him a Divine Right it 's as much his Property as if he had the clearest and most uncontested Title in the World The Doctor endeavors to get clear of this consequence by coining a distinction between Legal and Divine Right But this will do no execution upon the difficulty For if Possession always conveys a Divine Right all legal Claim must immediately determine I suppose the Doctor will not deny that God can repeal a Human Constitution Now when God transfers any Property from one Person to another it 's certain he must null the first Title For to explain this Matter Providence either conveys the Right with the Thing or it does not If not then the Right remains where it was and the Thing is wrongfully transferred which I believe no one will be so hardy as to affirm If Providence does transfer the Right with the Thing then the Legal Claim must be extinguished otherwise this Absurdity will follow viz. There will be a Human and Divine Law contradictory to each other in Force at the same time And since Human Laws when duly circumstantiated are confirmed by Heaven God's Authority must be engaged on both Sides and by consequence opposed to it self 3. This Principle destroys the Nature of Repentance by which it's generally understood that every one is bound to restore that which he has unjustly taken away But if we pursue the Doctor 's Reasoning to its just Consequences this Doctrin will not hold For if Possession though never so unjustly gained has always God's Authority to confirm it one would think there should be no obligation to Restitution For why should a Man restore that which he is vested in by a Divine Right And yet I doubt not but the Doctor will grant that Injustice cannot be forgiven without Repentance nor Repentance practised without Restitution so that by this Gentleman's Scheme a Man is both allowed and forbidden the same Thing and has a Divine Right to keep that for which he will be damned if he does not restore it which certainly is something more than ordinary 4. The Doctor 's Principle puts it in the Subjects Power to depose their Prince when they please I don't say it makes it Lawful for them to undertake it that would be to misrepresent him but when it 's once done his Notion of Power and Settlement confirms their Injustice and ratifies their Treason and by consequence makes a standing Army necessary 5. It cantonizes Kingdoms and removes the Boundaries of Dominion For if Power be a certain Sign of God's Authority then we ought to submit to every one who challengeth the Name of a King though for never so small a Precinct if he has but force to back his Pretensions And by consequence every Parish may set up for an Independent Government and we may be obliged to swear Allegiance to a Constable 'T is to no purpose to say That the Kingdom has not agreed to such a Division For the Limits of Kingdoms are founded upon nothing but Legal Right and Human Constitutions and therefore they ought not to oppose God's Authority which is always visible in Power Seas and Rivers and Mountains the usual Barrieres of Empire and Jurisdiction ought not to hinder Divine Right from taking place nor shut Providence out of the World 6. This Doctrin gives Thieves and Robbers a good Title to whatever they can steal and plunder The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to remove it but without success He offers to shew a disparity between common Thieves and Usurpers That the Scripture tells us Kingdoms are disposed by God and that all Power is of God but no Man pretends that Thieves have God's Authority 'T is not pretended but if the Principles hold it will be very difficult to disprove it For if Power is a certain Sign of God's Authority it follows That he who is strong enough to take a Purse must have a Divine Right to keep it If Providence orders and disposes all Events and there be no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done then why this Divinity should not hold upon Salisbury Plain or Newmarket Heath as well as upon any other occasion will be no easy Question to resolve The Scriptures which he alledges that Kingdoms are disposed by God do not come up to his point For we are likewise told That private Estates
is true as it happens in some other Revolutions they did not all submit to a Man and I conceive the Doctor will not insist upon the Necessity of this Condition But those who stood out Antiochus was well able to crush and did it to a very severe purpose As for the Time of his Government it held no less than three Years which the Doctor must own is long enough in all Conscience to justify a Compliance These Arguments for Submission are as strong as the Doctor 's Principles can require And yet we see the Convocation dislike Antiochus his Settlement and allows of Mattathias his Resistance So that nothing is more plain than that these Reverend Divines did not believe that the Concurrence of the Majority of a debauched Nation A full and uncontrolable Possession of Power lengthened out to three Years of Government were Advantages sufficient to infer a Divine Authority and to change a bad Title into a good one I know the Doctor urges That Antiochus his Governmert was not owned by any publick National Submission which is both more than the Convocation says or the Doctor can prove For if by a National Submission he means a Recognition of his Title in a publick Meeting of Persons of Condition he might probably receive such an Acknowledgment It 's not unlikely that Iason and Menelaus who were so forward in making their Court being Persons of the first Quality might engage the Nobility to render their new Allegiance in a solemn and publick Manner However the Business of Form is not Material 'T is certain from Iosephus that the generality of the Jews complied and when a Nation submits one would think there was a National Submission Indeed why should they not submit Here was most certainly Power in a very large and irresistable Proportion which is a thing we are told will Govern and therefore God always seconds it with his Authority I hope the Doctor does not believe Antiochus could make himself King of Iudea whether God would or no And if not How could these Jews have the Liberty to stand out against Providence and oppose a Divine Right 3. To give a farther Instance that the Convocation did not agree with the Doctor in his Notion of Power and Settlement We are told That if any Man shall affirm that the Jews might have withstood any of their Kings who claimed by Succession without Sin and opposing themselves against God or that the Kingdom of Iudah by God's Ordinance going by Succession when one King was dead his Heir was not in Right their King however by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound to obey him as their Lawful King He does greatly Err. Now for an Assembly to affirm That where a Succession is established the People cannot withstand it without opposing themselves against God that a Person who is Heir Apparent is immediately upon the Death of his Predecessor their Lawful King and ought to be obeyed as such notwithstanding the Usurpation of some Athaliah I say for them to affirm all this and at the same time to make Force a certain Sign of Divine Authority and that we ought to obey it from what point soever it rises To put it in the Subjects power to break all the Links of Succession and to give away an Hereditary Prince's Right by a National Submission or Treason as often as they please these are such rank such staring Contradictions that they are beneath the Inadvertencies of common Sense much more the Judgment of that Venerable Assembly If the Doctor replies that the Canon is to be restrained to a Succession which was settled by God's Ordinance or express Appointment and consequently to be understood only with Relation to the Kings of Iudea which had their Grown entailed by a particular Revelations To this I answer 1. That to take the Canon in this Sense is to make it insignificant and foreign to their Design Whereas it is evident their Book the first especially was written to assert the Right of Princes and to state and fix the Duty of Subjects But if the Examples they alledge and the Doctrine they maintain are not to be drawn down to application and practice what are we the better for them If their Precedents and Conclusions hold only for the Kings of Iudah to what purpose are they brought If we are unconcerned in them why are they couched into Canons and Principles and reported with that particularity and exactness We are not now to expect any express Orders from Heaven for the regulating Successions and therefore if the Convocation is to be understood only of Entayles by Revelation they might have spared their Pains for we are not likely to be the wiser for their Determination as they might easily perceive 2. I answer That Succession founded upon Humane Right is of equal Force with that which is supported by Revelation and requires as strong an Authority to defeat it 'T is true God in reward to David's Piety enntayled the Crown upon his Posterity by special Designation And no doubt it was no small Satisfaction to Him to be assured that his Family should reign as long as it continued and not be set aside by God's express Order to make room for another Line as that of Saul's was for himself But if by by the Fundamentals of the State the Crown was before Hereditary I cannot conceive what additional Strength could accrue to the Title from an Entayl by Revelation Eventually stronger I grant it might make it by refreshing the Peoples Minds and conveying an awfull Impression by the Solemnity of the Declaration but their Obligation to preserve the Descent was the same before For all Humane Provisions stand upon a Divine Bottom for which Reason the Apostle commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake The Laws of a Kingdom when the Authority is competent and the Matter just are as much as to the Ground of the Obligation the Laws of God as those he gave upon Mount Sinai And Kings are his Representatives as well as Angels by whose Disposition that Law was given Therefore those who pretend a Divine Repeal ought to bring Miracles and Revelation in one case as well as in the other These are such obvious Truths that the Convocation could not possibly overlook them and therefore could not lay any of that stress upon a Scripture Entayl upon which the Doctor insists But must suppose Compliance with Athaliah would have been as unaccountable in any other Country not governed by Revelation as it was in Iudea provided her Title was illegal To urge this Argument a little farther upon the Doctor If that which he phraseth Providence and Settlement is sufficient to null the Constitution thô never so clear and unquestionable then a great part of the Ceremonial Law was abrogated under Antiochus Epiphanes and the Iews were bound in Conscience to eat Swines Flesh and forbear
it as he pleases And thence it follows that when he has given it away by express Grant the former Possessor has no longer any Right and if not any no Legal one Farther If a Legal Right should continue after God has expresly given it away this absurdity will follow That God cannot repeal a Humane Law and consequently has a lesser Authority than Men. I have already proved that Revelation and Success are quite different Principles and that we have no manner of reason to infer God's Approbation from the latter as from the former and therefore the Doctor can take no Advantage from this way of Reasoning To return to the Kings of Babylon whose Title may easily be made out from the Scripture For first Iehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and became his Servant and was afterwards deposed by him for his Revolt After him Nebuchadnezzar being Sovereign Paramount sets up Iehoiachin Son to Iehoiakim who was afterwards carried away Captive and his Uncle Zedekiah made King by the Babylonian Monarch Thus we see the Kings of Iudah who only had the Right to govern that Nation became Vassals to the King of Babylon held their Crowns of him and were contented to reign durante Beneplacito And though Nebuchadnezzar might possibly oblige them by unjust Force to these Conditions yet after they had submitted their Act was valid and obliged to Performance This is sufficient to make Nebuchadnezzar a Legal Monarch But this is not all For Moab Ammon Tyre Sidon c. are expresly given to him by God himself and all those Princes together with Iehoiakim and Zedekiah are commanded to come under the Protection and to own the Authority of the King of Babylon And destruction is denounc'd against those who refused to comply That Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and that will not put their Neck under the Yoke of the King of Babylon that Nation will I punish saith the Lord with the Sword and with the Famine and with the Pestilence till I have consumed them by his hand Thus we see the Kings of Babylon reigned Dei Gratia with a Witness They had their Charter for Government signed and sealed in Heaven and delivered to Notice and publick View by Authentick and Unquestionable Hands This certainly is enough in all reason to make Nebuchadnezzar a Rightful Prince If the Doctor has any Thing of this Nature to justifie the present Revolution the Cause is his own Therefore if he knows of any Prophets he would do well to produce them Let them but shew their Credentials and prove their Mission and we have done But if he has none of this Evidence the places cited by the Convocation that God takes away Kings and sets up Kings are foreign to his purpose 'T is true when God speaks from Heaven all Humane Laws ought to give place and be silent But then we must consider that Revelation and the Doctor 's Notion of Providence are widely different the the one is an infallible Direction the other will lead us into all the Labyrinths of Confusion and Injustice And make us Abettors of all those unaccountable Practises which ungodly Power has the Permission to act If any Man will be of this Opinion he ought not to make the Convocation his Voucher Do they not say then that God removes and sets up Kings Not just in the Doctor 's Words They affirm That God has ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates in other Countries as well as in Iudea c. And may not all this be done without giving his Authority to Usurpers 'T is true they instance in Nebuchadnezzar But this Prince had both the Submission of the Kings of Iudah and the immediate Appointment of God either of which were sufficient to make his Title unquestionable And since his Authority was thus fortified it 's no wonder that the Convocation pronounces that the Iews were bound to obey him So that in their Sense God is said to take away Kings and set up Kings either 1. By express Nomination This way if there was no other the Babylonian and Persian Monarchies may be defended The former has been spoke to already And of the latter it was foretold by Isaiah long before the Birth of Cyrus That he should be a Conqueror that God had holden his right Hand or strengthened him to subdue Nations And that he should restore the Iews to their own Country which could not be done without the Destruction of the Babylonian Empire 2. God is said to take away and set up Kings when he suffers one King to conquer another and the right Heir is either destroyed or submits And since we are not to expect new Revelations we are to conclude God removes Kings no other way but this Which is no Limiting the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects as the Doctor supposes For God can when he sees it convenient either turn their Hearts or take them out of the World or incline them to Resign These are all easy and intelligible Expedients and don 't bring any of those Difficulties of Providence upon us as the Doctor has entangled himself with This keeps the ancient Boundaries of Right and Wrong unremoved and settles the Duty of a Subject upon a Legal Basis. Indeed where Revelation fails what is so reasonable a Direction to steer by as the Constitution which is confirmed by the Laws of Nature and the Authority of God Is not this a much more accountable Method than to resign up our Consciences to Violence and impetuous Accidents and to make Treason our Oracle Now setting aside the Scripture-right the Babylonian and Persian Monarchs had to their Empire it 's easy to conceive that these victorious Monarchs either destroyed those Kings they dispossessed or made them submit their Claim as Edgar Atheline did to William the Conqueror That this practice of dispatching them was usual to settle the new Conquests and prevent Competitors is very probable Upon this account it was that Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's Sons and all the Nobles of Iudah And at the fall of the Babylonian Empire Belshazzar was slain as we may learn from Daniel and Xenophon And how kindly the Romans used their Royal Captives may be guessed without other Examples by the Treatment of Perseus and his Family Now where the right Owner of the Government is destroyed though never so wickedly the Usurper becomes a Lawful Prince For Possession is a good Right where there is no better These Observations are sufficient to justify Submission to the four Monarchies without having recourse to the Doctor 's new Scheme I am now to attend the Doctor to Alexander the Great whom he gives a hard Character and thinks any Prince who gets the Throne may pretend as much Right as he Whether the Ground of Alexander's War was defensible or not is not material to the pointâ— However he insists very much upon the Justice
Prince with respect to the Israelites Their words are as follow Both these Examples of Ioram and Eglon do make it known to us that the Lord may overthrow any Kings c. notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms Now this Inference cannot be drawn from the premises unless Eglon had a good and unexceptionable Right to the Government of Israel For if Eglon's Title was defective in any point it could not be a ruled Case against those Princes who had a better But the Convocation affirm that from these Examples of Ioram and Eglon its evident that God can overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim Right Title c. which reasoning supposes that Eglon had all the Right and Claim Title c. which was requisite and by consequence was a Legal Prince From whence it appears that the Convocation does not mean a King de Facto in opposition to one de Iure for the Examples before them gave them no occasion for such a distinction but only a Prince in actual Administration of the Government without any reflection upon his Title 3. I have proved above that the Babylonian Monarchy was legally established over Iudea The Jews being expresly commanded by God himself to submit to the King of Babylon Now though the Jews were not allow'd out of their own voluntary motion to chuse a Foreign Prince especially when they had one of their own yet without question they might accept of one of God's chusing God doubtless has the liberty to dispense with or repeal his own positive Laws And as the Government of the Babylonians over Israel was unquestionable so likewise was that of the Persians who succeeded to the Right of the former Thus the Convocation affirm That the Kings of Persia continued a Supreme Authority over the Jews by God's appointment And that Nehemiah and Zorobabel were lawful Princes Which they could not have been unless the Kings of Persia were such because they acted by their Deputation 4. As to Alexander the Great the Convocation declares that the Jews were as much his Subjects as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia. And if they were as much his Subjects his Title to command them must be as good as that of the preceding Kings Besides I have already made it appear that the Jews submitted to him by God's particular direction Lastly The Convocation affirms That it was unlawful for Aristobulus the Father or either of his two Sons Alexander or Antigonus having all of them submitted themselves to rebel against the Romans This is a clear Argument that this Reverend Assembly believed the Right of the Crown of Iudea translated by the Submission of the Royal Line and that the Romans by consequence were their legal Governors And to make their Testimonies demonstrative they expresly pronounce that the Romans were the Jews lawful Magistrates And what Countrymen were the Romans Were they not Foreigners The Doctor sure does not think the Convocation took them for native Jews And if not they could not understand Deut. 17.15 in his Sense Farther To argue with the Doctor independently of the Convocation As this command in Deuteronomy was not given till after the Aegyptian Monarchy so the force of it expired under the Roman For after the coming of Shiloh the Scepter was to depart from Iudah Now the command of choosing a King of their own Nation could not extend to a Time in which it was foretold by Sacred Writ that their State should be dissolved and there was no more Kings of Iudah to be expected So that after the Messiah appeared it was Lawful for the Jews to submit to a Foreign Power notwithstanding the Text of Deuteronomy or else they were obliged to live in Hobs's State of Nature For if they might not submit to Foreign Princes they must break up Society and be independent of all Government For Iacob's Prophecy had barred them from having any Governors of their own Which latter supposition all Men will grant to be impracticable and absurd But if the Jews might Lawfully submit to a Foreign Power then those they submitted to were their Lawful Governors Besides at the Death of our Saviour all the Mosaick Law unless the Moral part of it was cancelled So that the Roman Emperors were as much the Natural Princes of the Jews as the Kings of Portugal and Spain are over their Posterity who now live in those Dominions From whence it follows that when St. Paul wrote the 13. to the Rom. upon which the Doctor so much insists He could not suppose the Roman Authority could receive the least blemish from Deut. 17.15 which I desire may be remembred against another Time In short the meaning of this last Text appears to be no more than this That the Jews were not permitted out of Levity to make a voluntary choice of a Foreign Prince But when they were under hard circumstances and injured none but themselves by their submission They were at Liberty to consult their advantage this as to the main is the Opinion of Grotius and has been the Doctor 's too Who seems to wonder the Pharisees could not distinguish upon the Prohibition but took it in too unlimited a sence So that its in vain for the Doctor to reply that if Force dissolves the Obligation of a positive Divine Law a meer human one cannot hold out against it For the command we see does not reach a case of Force but points at circumstances of Liberty and Inclination And what is farther very remarkable It does not follow that because the Israelites might submit to prevent hard usage when they were in their own Power When they were unengaged to any Prince of their own I say it does not follow from hence that they had any Authority to desert their Prince in his Distress and to give away his Right to save themselves harmless These two Cases are extreamly different In the first a Man resignes nothing but what belongs to him and is at his disposal But the other confounds the nature of property makes a Man forfeit without consent or provocation given And puts it in the Subjects power to translate their Allegiance without their Princes allowance and to depose them when they please I shall now proceed with his Book of Allegiance and before I take leave of the Chapter I was examining I shall just observe how inconsistent the Doctors Notion of Settlement is with it self and of what incoherent parts its compounded He tells us when the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by Him when all this is done and I suppose not before he concludes the Settlement compleat By which definition he plainly makes Force and Consent Power and Law essential to a
with the former And though I don't pretend to know what the Doctor is hatching in his Heart yet I 'm afraid he has slipped into this damnable and damned Opinion of the Spencers for he has ventured to affirm with great assurance That the Diminution of the Crown and the Personal Right of the King are very different Things Now if they are so very different it is because they are separable from each other And if the Crown may be diminished without injuring the Personal Rights of the King then the Rights of the Crown are not tyed to the King's Person That is in the Spencer's Language Allegiance the great Prerogative of the Crown follows the King 's Politick Capacity not his Personal and is due not to any Hereditary Advantage of Blood but may be challenged by Possession and Power especially if the Administration be cast into a Monarchical Figure From these Observations 't is evident That to maintain and defend the King's Person Crown and Dignity implyes an endeavour to restore him For not to repeat what has been said already the Crown is in construction of Law the Ius regnandi So that to swear to maintain his Crown imports an Obligation to defend his Right which is inseparably annexed to his Person and runs parallel with his Life unless he resigns From whence I conclude against the Doctor and Republican Saunders That in the Sense of the Oath to restore is necessarily included in Maintaining But possibly we are not aware what a monstrous Contents the Oaths of Allegiance will be big with if restoring is included in maintaining For then besides several other terrible things which I shall consider afterwards We swear it seems to disturb all Governments and raise Rebellions if we can to restore our King which are such absurd and unreasonable Engagements That had they been expressed in the Oath no Man in his wits would have taken it I think so too as the Doctor has represented the Matter But then before he drew such tragical Inferences it had not been amiss for him to have proved that there is any Government to disturb under a Usurpation For by way of Quere I would gladly know how there can be a Government without any Authority to administer Acts of Government And how a Man can have any Authority who has no Right to ground it upon or to give him a publick Character If Allegiance as we have seen is inseparably tyed to the Person of the King one would think there was no danger of a Crime in the performance of it Unless we should stretch it beyond the duration of his Person and appear from him after he was dead If the asserting the Laws and supporting the Constitution and engaging in the Cause of Justice Is a raising of Rebellion the Names of things are very much altered of late and if the things are not so too some Persons I fear are in no good Condition But to insist upon this no farther I believe the Doctor forgot that this extravagant Oath of Allegiance cannot be refused by any Person except Women Covert of the Age of Eighteen Years without incurring a premunire Now by the Iudgement of a premunire a Man is thrown out of the King's Protection And his Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels are forfeited to the King And his Body is to remain in Prison at the King's Pleasure Now a Man though he had no higher aim than Self-preservation might better venture the inconvenience of following his King into Banishment and run the risque of the rest then have this Act executed upon him For these are present and severe Punishments whereas the other are but contingent and remote Misfortunes at the worst So that no Man in his wits who considers the danger of declining this Oath would scruple the taking it though it was drawn up with all that Strictness of Loyalty which startles the Doctor And though he has dressed up this Oath in frightful Colours and given it an unkind parting Blow which looks like a sign that there was more of Convenience than Inclination in their former Correspondence yet if we take off the disguise and wipe off the marks of the Doctor 's hard usage we shall find it of a Complexion agreeable enough that it obliges us to no more than what was our Duty before and implied in our natural Allegiance and that the Contents of it are both reasonable and necessary to the Support of Government The Dr. proceeds to remove another Difficulty contained in the Oath of Allegiance viz. we swear to the King's Heirs and lawful Successors who are not in actual Possession and therefore that must signifie to give them Possession Right If the King dies Possessed of the Crown we must swear to maintain the Succession otherwise it seems not But 1. I can't conceive what Security this construction of the Oath can give to an Hereditary Monarchy Yes very much says the Doctor For if the King dies Possessed we swear to maintain the Succession and to own none but the true Heir But how long is this Maintenance and Owning to last Truly no longer then his Sword can challenge it If he gets Possession we are for him and so we are for any body else For if Iack Straw steps before him and proves lucky in his Events the true Heir must be contented to live upon the Metaphysical Dyet of legal Right without any Subjects to support him And thus the Oath of Succession when prudently interpreted resolves it self into this kind Interpretation That we solemnly swear to be unalterably true to our own Ease and Convenience and to adhere Religiously to the nimblest and strongest Party And for fear this should not satisfie the lawful Successor we swear moreover if you please not to make it our Act to set up any Prince who is not the right Heir True For there may be danger in doing otherwise especially when the King dyes possessed For then the Posse of the Kingdom is usually conveyed immediately to the right Heir and his Interest is much the strongest We ought therefore to be faithful to him when it 's unsafe for us to desert and assist him as long as he is able to live without us 'T is granted we are not to be too busy at first in setting aside the Succession for fear of burning our Fingers But if any ambitious Person is strong enough to make a Break in the Line we may lawfully comply with the Intrusion So that it seems we must not form an unjust Interest nor set out with it at first for possibly it may sail us But when it has gathered Strength by the Conjunction of more Wickedness and improved into a thriving Condition we may fix and support it fairly enough I perceive some people out of a tenderness to Society won't give us leave to break our Fast with Rebels for fear we should ruffle our Concerns and miscarry before Noon but when the day is once
Treason was committable against him for Treason is nothing but a high Breach of Allegiance But this Proclamation is so plain that there needs no farther Comment upon it And thus I have made it appear from the Resolution of all the Judges in two distinct and celebrated Cases by Proclamation and Acts of Parliament that Treason lyes against the King though out of Possession Which performance the Doctor is pleased to call Proving the Point and looked upon it as an impossible Undertaking The Doctor 's next Observation begins very obligingly for the Crown And seems to insinuate that the Subjects need not disturb themselves with Fears and Jealousies For in case a Prince should be enclined to stretch his Prerogative He can't hurt them unless they will betray their own Liberties and venture to be Hanged for it And who would venture an Execution only for Robbing himself There is no fear the Majority of the English Nation especially should ever be guilty of such an Extravagance So that now one would think all was safe enough But it happens quite otherwise For the Doctor flyes out unexpectedly against Arbitrary Power makes indecent Reflections and gives all Princes a Second Admonition to take warning And after this sit of Schooling is over he argues thus That if the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige Subjects to defend a Prince in the Exercise of an Arbitrary Power He thinks it much less obliges them to restore such a Prince To this granting the Doctors supposition for Disputes sake I answer That notwithstanding the Subjects are not to act for the promoting of Arbitrary Power yet they are bound to support an Arbitrary Prince supposing they have one This the Doctor must grant unless he will maintain That a Sovereign and unaccountable Power may be Forfeited by Maladministration which I think is a Contradiction For all Forfeitures imply a Legal and Superiour Court to take Cognizance of the Cause and pronounce Sentence which cannot be supposed in this Case without making a Superiour to a Supreme And if Sovereign Power is Unforfeitable than the Right of him who is vested with it must always remain And if so the Subjects are bound to support him in the Exercise of it though it may be sometimes over-strained into Rigour Let us try the Doctor 's Argument once more The Subjects are not obliged to defend a Prince in the Exercise of Arbitrary Power They are not bound to maintain the Excesses of a Prince's Prerogatives therefore they may deny him his just Rights They are not bound to give him more than his Due therefore they may give him less or take all away from him 'T is a fault to break the Laws in Favour of the Crown therefore we may break them for Rebellion Where lyes the Equity and Logick of these Propositions A less Master of Thinking than the Doctor would have found out the Distinction between Arbitrary and Regal Power and concluded that our Obligations not to promote the one did not discharge us from supporting the other His Inference That the making and receiving Addresses of Lives and Fortunes is supposed to signifie some other Defence than the Oath of Allegiance obliged the People to is not Mathematically drawn For may not Men make a Recognition of their Duty and give fresh Assurances to perform that which they were obliged to before What is more common in Religion and Civil Conversation than to renew former Engagements by repeated Promises and Solemnities of Action These Addresses of Loyalty refresh the Obligation of the Subject and the good Opinion of the Prince And therefore it 's no wonder they are kindly received though they present him with nothing but his own I don't mean that the People have no Property in their Lives and Fortunes but only that they are bound to expose and resign them to the Publick i. e. their Prince's Interest when Occasion requires The Doctor remarks farther That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath and therefore the Defence or Maintenance we swear is National that is to joyn with our fellow Subjects in defending the King's Person and Crown But in case the body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths and depose their King and drive him out of his Kingdom and set up another Prince in his room it 's worth considering whether some private Men are still bound by their Oath And immediately concludes certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath for it is a national not a private Defence we Swear I confess the Doctor has stated the Matter of Fact notably enough about Absolving Deposing Driving out Setting up c. But the Consequence he infers from thence I cannot understand for these following Reasons First because there is nothing in the Form of the Oath to countenance this Interpretation but the contrary For by the Oath of Allegiance every Person Swears to bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and his Heirs c. and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power Whence I observe 1. That the Swearing in the Singular Number and without Conditions of Assistance is an Argument that every individual Person is bound to unalterable Fidelity to the Crown without any Relation to or Dependance upon the Behaviour of his fellow Subjects 2. He that runs in to a Majority of Revolters does not defend the King to the uttermost of his Power For the King has neither his Counsel the Reserve of his Person nor the Example of his Constancy some or all of which might have been serviceable in their way and were in his Power to give him Nay he is so far from defending the King to the utmost of his Power that he consigns himself and all his Power into the hands of the Usurper to be employed against his lawful Sovereign which is as direct a Contradiction to the Words and Intention of the Oath as can possibly be imagined Farther the Oath declares I do believe and am in Conscience resolved That neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof But the Doctor is of another mind and concludes That when the great Body of the Nation has absolved themselves their Neighbours are absolved too I suppose the Doctor will not quibble upon the Word Person and argue that though the Pope nor any other Person has any Power to absolve us yet the People may because they imply another Number and include a Plurality of Persons If he objects in this manner the latter end of the Sentence is sufficient to disappoint him For there we renounce all Dispensations to the contrary Which Clause is levelled against Popular as well as Papal Plenitude of Power and comprehends the VVestminster-Infallibility as much as that of Rome Lastly all these things are sworn according to the express Words spoken and according to the plain and common Sense and Understanding of the same Words and without any Equivocation or
that business But what if the Subject has a passionate Affection for Justice as well as for his Prince and can't draw his Sword against the Laws with any manner of satisfaction What if he is afflicted to see a brave a generous and good-natur'd Prince so deeply injured What if he has an aversion to Violence and hates to strengthen the Workers of Iniquity If he has not command enough of his Conscience to conquer all these Scruples what Relief can the Dr. give him Very little that I know of And as for his calling it a Difficulty in Providence he must either mean That it 's a Difficulty to God Almighty or else That it is to human Understandings an incomprehensible way of proceeding for Providence to bar a good Prince of his Right only for having treacherous Subjects and bad Neighbours And if this be his meaning I agree with him unless we had a particular Revelation to clear the point But then I must add That the Dr's Scheme bearing thus hard upon the Attributes of God is but a bad Argument to conclude the reasonableness of it He says No man could have foreseen how Ch. the Second should have returned who had a powerful Army against him or J. the Second be driven out of his Kingdom at the Head of a powerful Army without shedding of Blood Now the reason why the latter instance of this Mystery was so difficult to penetrate is given by the Prophet Because the Heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it However according to the Dr's Application Providence was as much concerned in the one as in the other as much engaged to incline Men to desert and betray their Prince as to return to their duty to him He goes on to inform us That all the Plots and Conspiracies of the Loyal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant men to an unhappy End All the Plots c. That is the Loyal Party plotted to restore the Government and conspired against Rebellion This is somewhat oddly expressed but new Language and new Notions do well together I perceive the Dr. is resolved to furnish out Cloth and Trimming too for one bout But after all these fine words if his Doctrine holds true these Gallant Worthy Men were no better than Men Worthy and Traytors to God and the Common-Wealth Some People will likewise wonder since he had bestowed such Commendations upon the Royallists why he should tarnish their Character by saying they came to an Vnhappy End If he means it with respect to their Friends it might be so If in relation to themselves it 's utterly deny'd For is it in earnest a Misfortune to sign our Loyalty with our Blood and to dye in defence of the Laws Is it an Unhappiness to value our Honour and Integrity above our Lives and to expire in Constancy and Greatness If the Case be thus the Martyrs came to an Vnhappy End But I shall dismiss this Argument The Dr. is at last apprehensive lest this Doctrine should prove inconvenient and dangerous to Princes and answers the Objection by saying The contrary Doctrin is much more dangerous to Subjects Whose Interest it seems must be preferr'd though their Behaviour be never so monstrous and irregular I shall afterwards endeavour to shew That the Security of the Subject is better provided for upon the old Principles than by this new Scheme But why is the contrary Doctrin so dangerous to the Subject Because it 's a Folly to believe any Princes will endure those who are obliged by Principles of Conscience to oppose and disown their Government Is it Folly to think any Prince will endure such things Then it 's Folly it seems for him to endure them Here the Dr. has given us a Cast of his good Nature and shewn what a kind Advocate he is for his Brethren the Non-Swearers But why will he not endure them Does the Dr. think no Prince will endure a Man that has any Principles of Conscience Not when they are turned against him Why not if there is no Malice in the Opposition Why should any Power persecute People to the death meerly because they are willing to go Heaven and are afraid of being damned An intruding Prince if he has any Spark of Honour or Generosity in him if his Temper be not as ill as his Title won't sacrifice such Persons to Rage and Resentment Not only because such sort of Revenges look uncreditably and mean but because he knows his Interest is not declined out of Humour or Animosity but upon the score of Principles and Duty The Dr. undertakes another Objection which lies against his Doctrin of Providence viz. That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Title to his Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown What he has brought in answer to this in his Case of Allegiance I have already considered But he has since endeavoured to support himself upon some new Reasons in his Vindication and therefore these must be likewise examined Before I enter upon this matter it may not be improper to take notice That the Dr. was forced to make use of such extensive Principles in his first Book that like a large Town they are much the weaker for their Compass Which makes the defence of them at all Quarters utterly impracticable I am mistaken if that which I have formerly alledged together with the obvious Consequences which result from it does not contain an Answer to what the Dr. has lately produced For if as he maintains all Power whether Legal or Illegal is from God and a certain sign of his Authority if Providence orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private men as well as publick Societies if there is no difference between the Divine Permissions and Approbations no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done If all this be true I confess I cannot understand why a Robber's Title is worse than a Usurper's However since the Dr. continues of another mind the Grounds of his Dissent shall be considered Now he endeavours to shew That private Robberies and Vsurpations have not the same Effect and Confirmation from Providence Because all private Injuries are reserved by God himself to the redress of publick Government therefore his Providence has no Effect at all upon such Personal Rights But such Disputet which are too big for a legal decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to His own Iudgment such as the correction of Kings and the transferring of Kingdoms And here the final determination of Providence in settling Princes upon their Thrones draws the Allegiance of the Subjects after it 'T is granted That Government is appointed by God for the redressing private Injuries but it 's likewise as true That all Injuries of this kind are not actually redressed There are very many
Irregularities committed by the Subjects towards each other which remains uncensured and unrectified by the Courts of Justice and therefore why should not Providence interpose by way of Supplement and determine private Property by Events as well as the Dominions of Princes Subjects by their Immoralities and Mismanagement deserve oftentimes to be chastized and dispossessed of their Fortunes Why therefore should there not be a Court of Events set up to assert the Soveraignty of Providence and to supply the defects of Human Justice in one Case as well as in the other But Providence has no Effect upon such Personal Rights Is it because they are Personal Then it can have no Effect upon the Crown for that surely belongs to the King's Person The Dr. cannot deny that God is supreme Lord of private Estates as well as of Kingdoms and that He disposes them according to his pleasure And since He orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private Persons it follows by inevitable consequence that whatever any man can catch is God Almighty's Gift and then surely there is no reason to question the Title God in erecting Courts of Judicature did not intend to make the Subjects any more than the Prince independent of his own Jurisdiction or to exclude Himself from any part of the Government of the World And therefore if all publick Changes and Revolutions of Kingdoms are certain Signs of God's Approbation and fortified with his Authority we ought to conclude the same with respect to inferiour Concerns If the Successes of Violence always draws Allegiance after them and translates the Authority from the Rightful Prince to the Usurper I see no reason why they should not have the same consequence upon private Property for that Cause which can produce a greater Effect may no doubt produce a less of the same kind If Providential Events can unsettle the Crowns of Princes 't is strange they should not have an equal Jurisdiction over things of an inferiour value If this Principle is sufficient to overturn the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom and to transferr the Prerogatives and Royalties of Government I wonder how any petty private Rights can stand before it Have private Rights a firmer Establishment than the publick And is the Property of Crowns more precarious and slenderly guarded than that of a Cottage If Events can give an Island or a Continent to every Victorious Usurper why should a more modest Robber who makes himself Master of a small Sum of Money be denied the same Privilege of his Industry or Courage This is great Partiality and by the Dr's Reasoning a Confining Providence with a witness and fettering it with Courts of Human Justice So that God can't dispose of the Property of the Subject unless the Judges and Jury are pleased to consent to it The truth is the Dr. has made the Condition of Princes very lamentable As for Subjects when they are injured by Theft or Intrusion their Property remains entire and they have the Remedy of Law to relieve them But Princes must not pretend to these Securities when they are once disseized though never so unaccountably their Authority is out of doors and they must sit down by their Misfortune without Redress They are to Govern only durante bene placito no longer than the Sence and Conscience of the People will give them leave two Qualities which seldom fall to the share of the majority And which is an harder Consideration than all the rest it 's their Honourable Relation to God Almighty which puts them into these circumstances of disadvantage Had they not had a Commission from Him their Right had been fenced as well as those of other Men but their being His Ministers to Rule the World has cut them off from the common Privilege This must needs be a mortifying Consideration to Princes and make their Charge a very dangerous Undertaking Who that could live any other way would wear a Crown at this rate Who would change the Title of Private Property and throw himself out of the protection of the Law for such a glittering Uncertainty Who would quit a certain and solid Interest and expose himself to all the Humours and Accidents the Wickedness and Extravagance of Human Nature is capable of producing 'T is certainly much more eligible to have the Security of stated Justice than to stand to the Courtesie of Events and lye at the Mercy of Ambition and the Madness of People But Such Disputes which are too big for a Legal Decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to his own Iudgment What sort of Dispute does the Dr. mean and between whom does it lye Is it between the Lawful Prince and the Usurper If so the very Names of the Parties are sufficient to end the Controversie For certainly there is no need of disputing whether Right is Right or Wrong is Wrong The Dr. I fear to perplex the Argument seems to perplex the Title and disputes as if it was equally doubtful on both sides and then I confess Events i. e. Possession might determine it But this cannot be supposed without altering the state of the Question For the Dr. has put the Case at the worst and reasoned upon the Supposition of Vsurpation and owns That his Principles oblige him to do so And would our Author have a Vniversal Tribunal erected to overthrow Universal Justice to dispossess and exterminate Lawful Princes and determine the Cause in Favour of Violence Well! Possibly the Dr. means this Dispute is between God and the Lawful Prince 'T is for the Correction of Princes and the Transferring of Kingdoms Touching the transferring of Kingdoms there are several ways as I have already observed of maintaining the Divine Soveraignty in this point without making any Difficulties in Providence and sapping the Foundations of Common Right And as for the Correcting of Princes God does not stand in need of Injustice and Rebellion for this purpose He can execute this Discipline without the necessary Wickedness of the Subject He can afflict Princes in their Families and in their Persons He may likewise suffer them to be over-run by Violence without giving any Approbation or Authority to the Oppression As he suffers the Devil to do a great deal of Mischief though He neither gives him a Commission nor ratifies his Acts. Besides there will be an Vniversal Tribunal erected at the last day where Princes must appear as well as meaner persons and where mighty Men if they have done amiss will be mightily tormented Thus we see Kingdoms may be transferred Princes punished and God's Prerogative asserted without returning to the Doctrine of Events These Expedients are plain and lye easie upon the Understanding and answer all the Difficulties objected by the Dr. without running us upon greater Thus Kings who are only less than God are left to his Sentence and Correction Whereas the Dr's Scheme puts them in the Power
there is a great difference between the King 's throwing up the Government and the Peoples throwing up their King Yes the Dr. grants he may notwithstanding his dispossession have a Legal Right to Allegiance and the Crown and from whom is this Right due From the People then sure they ought to give it him and by Consequence the Relation continues No such Matter says our Author the Subjects can't pay him their Allegiance without his being Restored Let them stay then till they can If a Man ows a Sum of Money and can't pay it at the day is this either a Legal or an Equitable Discharge of the Debt Is there any Reason the Creditor should forfeit for the Insufficiency or Knavery of the Debtors An Honest Man if he can't give full Satisfaction at present is willing to pay as far as he is able Above all things he will avoid assigning over his Estate into such Hands which he knows will not only defraud the Right Owner but employ his Money against Him The Dr. both here and in his Vindication goes upon the Old Mistake That meer Actual Dominion and Soveraign Power make a King and compleat the Royal Part of the Relation But this is begging the Question as the Dr. seems sensible by the Objection he raises in his Adversary's behalf which with a little improvement will contain an Answer to what he has further urged It is to this purpose The Relation between King and Subject must continue as long as the fundamentum relationis or the Ground of the Relation continues which Ground being built upon Legal Right while this Right remains the dispossessed Prince is still King and the Subjects owe him their former Allegiance And what has the Dr. to say to all this Truly as little as a man would desire He tells you That a Legal Hereditary Right is not the Fundamentum Relationis the Foundation of that Relation which is between Prince and Subjects for then there would be no Foundation for such a Relation in any but Hereditary Kingdoms which is a mistake But pray who says Hereditary Right is the only Ground of the Relation between King and Subject The Dr's Adversaries affirm no such thing they say That this Relation is founded upon Right in general according to the nature of the Constitution in Hereditary Kingdoms upon Hereditary Right in Elective Kingdoms upon Elective Right and where the Person is nominated by God the Ground of this Relation is a Right from Revelation Neither do these different Foundations as the Dr. calls them which are nothing but diversify'd Right affect the Authority consequent upon them the different ways of acquiring Soveraignty does not work any change upon the Royal Prerogatives nor hinder the Relation between King and Subjects from being the same The Dr. foresaw it would be objected That an immoveable and unalterable Allegiance is the best Principle to prevent all Revolutions and to secure the Peace of Human Societies as I think has been made good already Now his Answer to this Objection is were the Subject less important entertaining enough For says he if this Principle would prevent all Revolutions it 's a Demonstration against it that it 's a bad Principle a meer Human Invention which cannot come from God It seems then we are all ruined if we have nothing but Peace and Quietness amongst us If there is not care taken for the Returns of Rebellion to destroy and debauch Mankind the World in a little time would be insufferably over-stocked with Honesty and Numbers I will say that for the Dr. he has provided against this Inconvenience as well as any Author living But in earnest Can't God remove and set up Kings unless the Sins of the People help Him nor exercise His Soveraign Prerogative without damning His Creatures I hope I have made it appear That a Being of infinite Perfections has no necessity to take such measures or make use of such Instruments as these I wish those Principles which imply such Consequences as these and several others of the same extraordinary Tendency are not something worse than a meer Human Invention The Dr. urges farther against the Sufficiency of this immoveably-loyal Principle That it has not Force enough to attain its End and though it was too strong in the last Objection yet now it seems it 's grown too weak for it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government for there have been such Revolutions in all Ages And what follows Are such Revolutions occasion'd by those Principles which condemn them Or by the People who desert or break in upon their Principles Don't Men frequently ruine their Health and their Fortunes and make themselves miserable by their Vices And ought we therefore to conclude that God's Laws which provide against these Mischiefs are either defective or unreasonable I suppose not But Those Principles which expose the most Innocent and Consciencious Men to the greatest Sufferings without serving any good end by them cannot be True And Is not the Maintenance of Right and the Defence of the Constitution the Tryal of Integrity and the giving a noble Example a very good End I 'm sorry if the Dr. does not think it's worth a Man's while to suffer upon these Accounts What he subjoins That it s no true Principle which obliges honest men to lose their Lives in opposition to the Government is a Misrepresentation of the Case for Non-complyance with an Usurpation is no Opposition to the Government for there can be no Government without Authority nor any Authority without Right but Right and Usurpation are Contradictions in Terms Farther To oppose the Government is to oppose the Laws of the Government which cannot be done by adhering to a Lawful Prince without destroying the very Supposition unless opposing and defending are the same thing But if the Dr. or any body else should mean in general That a Principle which obliges Honest Men to lose their Lives c. is not True then by the same reason Christianity is false for a great many Honest men have lost their Lives by suffering for this Religion and were obliged by their Principles so to do Now we are as much bound to the performance of Justice and the other Duties of the Second Table as to defend the Articles of our Creed Nay the latter were revealed on purpose to enforce the Practice of the former to teach us to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World and to make us a peculiar People zealous of good Works What he mentions concerning the Scripture has been considered above At last the Dr. is pleased to own That we must chuse rather to suffer than to sin but then we must be very sure that it is our Duty that it is expresly enjoyned us by the Laws of God or Nature before we venture to suffer for it What if it is enjoyned us by undeniable Consequence is not that sufficient without a plain Text I perceive
Paragraph a little farther Now the Dr's Reason why a Divine Entail is stronger than a meer Human one is Because the first is founded upon express Revelation the later has nothing more than a providential Settlement of the Crown upon such a Family but Providence is not to be expounded against the express Revelation of God's Will To this I answer That an Human Entail has a great deal more to plead than the Dr's Notion of Providence It has a Legal Right to support it's Title which gives it an equal firmness with a Claim made from Divine Designation For we have plain Texts of Scripture to submit to the Constitution of our respective Countries and to look upon our Lawful Governours as God's Ministers And since a Legal Right is fortified with express Revelation it must have an equal privilege with a Divine Entail and carry it against all Providential Pretences by the Dr's own Argument He goes on and attempts to prove the difference between Divine and Human Laws as to their Force because in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God in the other Case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws To this it may be replied 1. That according to the Dr's description of a Divine Law there are few or none of this Character to be found either in the Old or New Testament for the Mosaick Law was given by the disposition of Angels and the Gospel was delivered by the Apostles 'T is true those Precepts given by our Saviour may be said to proceed from a Supreme and Soveraign Power But then we are to consider that his Humanity was the Organ of their Conveyance So that by our Author 's Reasoning these practical Manifestations of the Will of God are but Human or Angelical Laws at the highest For not being delivered by the Deity Himself the Authority of God must be conveyed at a distance and terminate on the Person of the Minister who represents Him and by consequence cannot immediately affect his Laws Now this Immediate Conveyance is the Dr's distinguishing Privilege which he makes essential to the Character of a Divine Law And therefore I would gladly know why an Entail grounded only upon a Prophetical or Angelical Law may not be over-rul'd by Providential Events as well as an Human Legal Settlement For Angels have no original Immediate Authority any more than Kings and Kings are called Elohim Gods as well as the other and have as ample and I may add a more standing Authority to Govern Mankind than any of the Heavenly Hierarchy Now if Providence understood in the Dr's sence ought to have the same effect upon those Laws which were given by Angels or Prophets as upon others which are meerly Human as by his Argument it must have then Ioash's Entail was cut off by Athaliah's Possession and Iehojada was guilty of Treason for deposing her 2 dly It 's not at all material as to the Dispute in hand Whether the Divine Authority affects the Laws of Princes immediately or mediately As long as we are certain of the thing the manner of its Conveyance is no abatement of the original Vertue The Dr. grants That Princes have God's Authority to make Laws Now God's Authority to make Laws implies a Right to make them And since as the Dr. observes there are no Degrees of Right there can for the same reason be none of Authority and therefore it must be full and perfect where-ever it is If the Divine Commission of an Human Law-giver is certain and unquestionable we need enquire no farther for God's Authority receives no prejudice by being delivered to His Representatives So that provided the truth of the thing is secured the way of its coming to us whether by Removes or not signifies nothing for in this Case the distance of the Conveyance does not in the least weaken the Force of the Operation What the Dr. adds concerning Divine Laws That they have 〈◊〉 Superior Authority to all Human Laws is true but foreign to his purpose for God can null his own Laws as well as those which are purely Human as He has actually done in the Mosaick Dispensation so that the possibility of a Divine Repeal does not make any difference between Human and Divine Laws they being both of them equally liable to such an alteration Besides we are to observe that though God can repeal the Laws made by Himself or his Representatives yet we are by no means to suppose that Events and Providence as the Dr. takes it are any Authentick Declarations of the Divine Will His Instance in the By Laws of a Corporation is likewise unserviceable for these private Laws within the Precincts of the respective Towns have the same Force with the more general Laws of the Kingdom provided their Charter is comprehensive and full and granted by those who have the entire Legislative Power which last Privilege cannot be denied to God Almighty and therefore his Authority must be as strong in the delegation as in its more immediate exercise The Dr. in his Case of Allegiance to which I am now returned endeavours to gain a Text in Hosea from the usual Interpretation and make it consistent with his Principles Here as the Dr. observes God expresly charges Israel with making Kings without him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes but I knew it not To this the Dr. replies That this was not true as to all the Kings of Israel after their separation from the Tribe of Judah If it was true of some of them it 's sufficient to justifie the objected Exposition against him This Answer therefore being perfectly inoffensive I shall pass to his Second in which he argues That Baasha slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express nomination And yet God tells him I have exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel Now if there were any difficulty in this Text the Dr. has effectually removed it in his Case of Resistance the Passage is not only well managed but stands unrecanted And thus it is God having threatned to destroy Jeroboam ' s whole Family Baasha fulfills this Prophecy by the trayterous Murther of Nadab who succeeded his Father Jeroboam in the Kingdom and usurped the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam ' s House This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which God afterwards threatned to destroy his House as He had done the House of Jeroboam And yet he having usurped the Throne and got the Power into his hands and no Man having a better Title than his God is said to have exalted him out of the Dust and made him Prince over his people Israel All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession i. e. where the Kingdom